Posted on 09/16/2011 12:33:42 PM PDT by MissesBush
Two years ago, two major Republican campaigns swarmed the California GOP fall convention, confident that they could drum up the support to beat three-term incumbent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was considered vulnerable because of her low voter-approval ratings.
This year, as 1,000 GOP activists gather today in Los Angeles for their fall convention, things are different, as even the California Republican Party chairman has no idea who will take on 19-year-incumbent Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein next year - and no major candidates have stepped up.
But the landscape may change soon, analysts said, given Feinstein's recent campaign money problems and a Field Poll released today that gives one of California's most consistently popular politicians a 41 percent approval rating, the lowest of her Senate career.
One person considering a run, The Chronicle has learned, is Michael Reagan, a former conservative talk-radio host and the son of former President Ronald Reagan.
Republicans may consider a challenge to Feinstein less foreboding after the survey of 1,001 registered voters found that 39 percent disapprove of Feinstein's performance and 20 percent have no opinion.
For the first time since being elected to the Senate in 1992, a plurality - 44 percent - of Field Poll respondents were "not inclined" to vote for her while 41 percent were. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
At the same point before each of her three previous re-election bids, at least 52 percent of Field Poll respondents were inclined to support her.
When voters turn on politicians like Feinstein, who has enjoyed more bipartisan support over her career than most California politicians, "it just shows the depth of voter disgust with what's going on in Washington," Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They did this with Boxer last time. Feinstein isn’t going anywhere. This is just the California libs’ way of getting out the vote. They scare the hell out of the voters by making them think they are on the verge of losing their nanny state and may have to go out and get a job.
Policy differences aside, Feinstein should retire. She is 78 and, in my opinion, not a particularly spry 78.
It is a pity that no one close to her has advised her (successfully, at least), “Di, look: this is a deep blue state. Heck, it even elects a dumbass like BOXER. Point being, you can groom a successor and endorse him or her. Don’t stay and stay and STAY and STAY like some Democrat version of Strom Thurmond.”
They just can’t say goodbye to the power, can they? We need more “Cincinnati,” more people like Washington who want and choose to leave power behind before it corrupts them.
I hope Michael Reagan runs against Feinswine, although he has zero chance of winning. It would be better to have a true conservative speaking out than some liberal-lite RINO like Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina. I remember in 1988 Mr. Nothington (who was driven into homosexuality by his ex-wife Arianna Huffington) almost beat Feinswine.
Is Michael the only conservative among Ronald Reagan’s children?
Way to go, Michael!
The late Maureen Reagan was conservative in most things. Both kids raised with Jane Wyman conservative, the two with Nancy California nutcases.
I’ve got an idea for the Feinstein seat. How about a conservative Hispanic? There has to be a “Martinez” or “Sandoval” that could be funded for a real shot at winning.
Yes, I believe Maureen Reagan (Michael’s sister) even ran for office.
The funny thing is, while married to Jane Wyman, Ronald Reagan was a "liberal, New Deal Democrat", in his own words. He became a conservative after he met and married Nancy Davis (Reagan) in 1952-53. According to his autobiography, she was a factor in his conversion to conservatism.
Wish I had the money to run.
“The late Maureen Reagan was conservative in most things” BULLCRAP! She stuck us w/ that WORTHLESS Sandra Day O’Conner! Like “Laura Bush” tried to STICK us w/ Harriet Miers!
Not to be blasphemous but Jesus himself could run as a Republican in California and lose. A conservative Hispanic has no better shot at it than a conservative white. This state has thoroughly drank the left wing Koolaid.
“Is Michael the only conservative among Ronald Reagan’s children?”
Yes. The late Maureen Reagan was also conservative. The other two did not vote for their father.
I don’t think anyone knew what to expect of O’Connor at the time she was nominated. Are you saying Reagan intentionally nominated a liberal, or at someone who was left of center on many issues?
No what I AM saying is that Maureen make a “deal” with Daddy that if he nominated the first “women” to USSC that she would stay silent about her LIBERAL ways and not cause any trouble(all of this as per Mike’s interview on C-Span a couple of months back) for daddy’s Presidential Campign. Maureen was a HUGE ERA Supporter in the 70s and early 80s!
I’m not sure she had much a role in picking the DREADFUL Sandra Day O’Connor, you may know something I don’t though.
While it was several years ago, I read Reagan’s diary and possibly the most surprising thing was how little importance he placed on the nomination. I really believe there was one passage that read “I think I’ll pick that lady from Arizona for the SCOTUS”.
Now if we could get Satan to run- he’d have a fighting chance in that state.
refi difi, nada!
Many women supported the ERA, but I expect O’Connor was accepted without much scrutiny because she came before Bork, which was really the event that politicized SCOTUS nominations to the extent they have been ever since.
I also heard Michael say that when it was known Maureen’s illness would be fatal, that she told him that he would have to be the Reagan child who told the truth about their father’s legacy because the other two would not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.